The Fossil Record: Evolution or "Scientific Creation"

Clifford A. Cuffey

Critique of the Fossil Evidence

Not only do “creation scientists” misinterpret the ambiguity of missing links, they also do not accept the evidence for transitional fossils that does exist. An instructive lesson is a careful examination of their arguments against the evolution of mammals from synapsid reptiles (Gish, 1995). First, concerning amphibians, reptiles, and mammals, Morris (1985, p. 83) stated, “All of them are four-legged vertebrates with similar skeletal s tructures and thus their fossilized remains provide little basis for distinguishing between them.” That statement is partially incorrect; there are, in fact, many skeletal features which distinguish these classes (Carroll, 1988).

Second, as is typical of “creation science” books, Gish (1995) presented a series of quotes that have been taken out of context from various articles about synapsid evolution and fitted together to form a story that misrepresents the meaning of the original authors’ works. That is not corroborative evidence for “creation science,” and it does not disprove evolution.

Third, Gish (1995, p. 149) claimed that, “In their attempts to establish an evolutionary tree or phylogeny for the mammal-like reptiles and the mammals, evolutionists rely almost entirely on similarities to link these creatures in an evolutionary scenario. They are forced to do this because of the lack of transitional forms required for their hypothetical evolutionary ladder.” Further, Gish claimed that large and systematic gaps separate the major groups of synapsids from each other and from mammals (Gish, 1995, p. 151, 159-163). Gish (1995, p. 161) claimed, “The fossilized remains of each of these stages appear fully-formed, with no transitional forms documenting the gradual transition of one stage into the next, and very little, if any, further change occurs until this stage or level is abruptly replaced by the next.” All of these claims are directly contradicted by fossil evidence. Virtually none of the groups appear fully formed nor exhibit very little internal evolution. Within the sphenacodonts, from the Upper Pennsylvanian to Lower Permian, the angular notch is noticeably deepened and the reflected lamina became a noticeable flange (Currie, 1977, 1979; Romer & Price, 1940; Hopson, 1994). Within the cynodonts, significant e volution took place. The oldest cynodonts from the upper Upper Permian have an incomplete bony secondary palate (Parrington & Westoll, 1940; Hopson, 1987, 1994; Kemp, 1979). Subsequently, in Triassic cynodonts, the palate was completed. The bony palat e was progressively formed and sutured, not instantly formed (Parrington & Westoll, 1940; Parrington, 1946; Hopson, 1987, 1994; Fourie, 1974; Romer, 1969b, 1970b, 1973; Carroll, 1988). Also, the reflected lamina was progressively and gradually transfo rmed into a tiny horseshoe-shaped bone (Allin, 1975; Allin & Hopson, 1992; Hopson, 1987, 1994; Brink, 1963; Kemp, 1979; Fourie, 1974; Romer, 1969b, 1970b, 1973; Carroll, 1988).

Fourth, Gish (1995, p. 164) stated that, “It is apparent that the argument for linking pelycosaurs to the therapsids is extremely weak and is based solely on certain similarities. There are no transitional forms that would provide ac tual evolutionary links between pelycosaurs and therapsids.” Here Gish quoted Romer & Price (1940) out of context and altered the meaning of their conclusions. In fact, the fossil evidence contradicts Gish’s claim: the oldest therapsids and sphenacodo nts are very similar in nearly every aspect of their morphology, especially the skulls (Romer & Price, 1940; Currie, 1977, 1979; Tchudinov, 1960, 1983; Efremov, 1954; Olson, 1962; Sigogneau & Tchudinov, 1972). This was demonstrated 90 years ago (B room, 1910)!

Fifth, Gish (1995, p. 165) stated that, “It must be emphasized that the non-cynodont therapsids appeared abruptly, that is, with all their basic characteristics complete ...There are no transitional forms, no intermediates, that link these...to some hypothetical pelycosaur ancestor.” That statement is contradicted by the fossil record. The therapsids do not appear fully formed; the oldest are more similar to the pelycosaurs than to the cynodonts in their morphology (Romer & Price , 1940; Currie, 1977, 1979; Tchudinov, 1960, 1983; Efremov, 1954; Olson, 1962; Sigogneau & Tchudinov, 1972). The eotitanosuchians are in fact intermediates, as is clearly indicated by the enlargement of the lateral temporal fenestra and reflected lami na compared with the pelycosaurs but not to the degree of the other younger therapsids, including the therocephalians. Moreover, the eotitanosuchians do not have a coronoid process (like the pelycosaurs) but do have well developed canines (like subsequent therapsids; Romer & Price, 1940; Currie, 1977, 1979; Tchudinov, 1960, 1983; Efremov, 1954; Olson, 1962; Sigogneau & Tchudinov, 1972).

Sixth, Gish (1995, p. 166) stated that, “the cynodonts...are found at the earliest levels in rocks of the Late Permian.” That is incorrect; the oldest cynodonts are in fact from the late part of the Late Permian (Kemp, 1979, 1982).

Seventh, concerning Morganucodon, Gish (1995, p. 169) stated, “What is the evidence for a squamosal-dentary joint in these creatures? This evidence consists of an alleged condyle on the dentary.” That statement misrepresents t he data. The condyle is definitely present; it is not “alleged” (Kermack, Mussett, & Rigney, 1973, 1981; Carroll, 1988). The corresponding shallow depression in the squamosal into which the condyle fitted in life corroborates this. Hopson (1987) state d that articulated material has been found with the two bones in contact.

Eighth, Gish (1995, p. 169, 170) stated that, “The anatomy required for (the reptilian jaw-joint), including the arrangement and mode of attachment of musculature, the arrangement and location of blood vessels and nerves, etc., must be quite different from that required for a mammalian jaw-joint. How then could a powerful, fully functional reptilian jaw-joint be accommodated along with a mammalian jaw-joint?” That statement is irrelevant because fossils of Morganucodon conclus ively demonstrate that the two jaw joints did exist side-by-side (Kermack, Mussett, & Rigney, 1973, 1981; Carroll, 1988). That is incontrovertible evidence that cannot be explained away. Moreover, the new mammalian jaw musculature developed progressiv ely throughout the cynodonts, beginning with the Upper Permian procynosuchids (Barghusen, 1968; Crompton, 1972; Crompton & Parker, 1978; Hopson, 1987, 1994). The new muscles progressively expanded onto more and more of the coronoid process and posteri or part of the dentary (Barghusen, 1968; Crompton, 1972; Crompton & Parker, 1978; Hopson, 1987, 1994). Thus, the mammalian jaw musculature evolved while the lower jaw was still hinged to the skull only by a reptilian jaw joint, and was already present in Morganucodon .

Ninth, Gish (1995, p. 171) stated that, “Finally, and this is conclusive, not a single intermediate between an animal with a powerful, fully functional reptilian jaw-joint and a powerful, fully functional mammalian jaw-joint has been found.” That statement is incorrect. Morganucodon contains both jaw joints side-by-side (Kermack, Mussett, & Rigney, 1973, 1981; Carroll, 1988). Tenth, concerning the evolution of the middle ear, Gish (1995, p. 167, 168) stated that, “Another difficulty with the above notion is the fact that while thousands of fossils have been found which possess a single ear bone and multiple jaw bones, and thou sands of fossil mammals have been found which possess three ear bones and a single bone in the jaw, not a single fossil creature has ever been found which represents an intermediate stage, such as one possessing three bones in the jaw and two bones in the ear.” That misrepresents how the mammalian middle ear evolved. As demonstrated by the fossil record, the quadrate and articular became part of the middle ear as a unit, along with the angular (Allin, 1975, 1986; Allin & Hopson, 1992; Hopson, 1966, 1987, 1994; Ro sowski, 1992; Crompton, 1972; Crompton & Parker, 1978). Gish (1995, p. 171) continued by stating, “This would have required that the stapes (columella) of the reptile become free from its attachment to the tympanum (ear drum), and the retroarticular p rocess of the articular gain an attachment to the tympanum...Somehow, while all of this was going on, the quadrate bone of the reptilian ancestor must gain its freedom, move into the middle ear, and insert itself between the stapes and malleus...” That is false.

1. First, in the oldest reptiles, including synapsids, the stapes extended from the inner ear to the quadrate; a lizard-like tympanum was never present (Carroll, 1964, 1988; Romer & Price, 1940; Allin, 1975, 1986; Allin & Hopson, 1992).
2. Second, in therapsids, especially cynodonts, the tympanum was suspended across the angular cleft supported in part by the reflected lamina and the other post-dentary bones including the articular (Allin, 1975; Allin & Hopson, 1992).
3. Third, the retroarticular process of the articular already had contact with the tympanum (Allin, 1975; Allin && Hopson, 1992).
4. Fourth, the quadrate was already present between the stapes and the articular, not necessitating any such movement (Allin, 1975; Allin & Hopson, 1992).

All of this is documented by the fossil record. Concerning his version of origin of the mammalian middle ear, Gish (1995, p. 171) stated, “There is absolutely no fossil evidence whatsoever to support such an incredible scenario.” That’s because his versi on of the origin of the mammalian middle ear is wrong.

Eleventh, continuing about the soft part anatomy of the mammalian inner ear, Gish (1995, p. 172) stated that, “The organ of Corti...has no homologue in reptiles. There is no possible structure in the reptile from which it could have been derived. It would have had to have been created de novo, since it was entirely new and novel.” That statement is incorrect. In fact, the basilar papilla of the reptilian inner ear is homologous with the organ of Corti (Romer, 1956, p. 33-38, 1970a; S loan, 1983). The basilar papilla, or organ of Corti, is contained in one portion of the inner ear known as the cochlear canal (Romer, 1956, p. 33-38, 1970a; Allin & Hopson, 1992). The cochlear canal is encased in bone and endocasts can be made that deline ate its shape (Allin & Hopson, 1992). In cynodonts, the cochlear canal is a short blunt feature (Allin & Hopson, 1992). In Morganucodon, it is elongate and slightly curved (Allin & Hopson, 1992). In modern mammals it is long and coiled (Allin & Hopson, 1992). Indeed, even the inner ear did not appear fully formed but progressively evolved.

Twelfth, Gish (1995, p. 152) stated that the succession of synapsid taxa “...must be juxtaposed according to an imagined evolutionary sequence, or at least according to some scheme determined by assumptions based on indirect evidence .” That is incorrect. In fact, the evidence for the geochronologic order of the various synapsid-bearing strata is quite good and independent of any evolutionary assumptions (Kemp, 1982; Frenzel, et al., 1988; Jones & Hentz, 1988; Olson, 1957, 1962; Tchudinov 1965; Efremov & Vyushkov, 1955; DuToit, 1954; Keyser & Smith, 1977-78; Bonaparte, 1966; Romer, 1966; Romer & Jensen, 1966; Waterhouse, 1978; Ross, 1979; Harland et al., 1989). In conclusion, everything that is known abou t the fossil record of synapsid reptiles and early mammals contradicts not only the basic predictions of the “creation science” model, but also contradicts point-by-point most of the detailed discussion of the topic by Gish (1995). The same conclusion can be said for “creationist scientists’” interpretations of the remainder of the fossil record (Gish, 1978, 1985, 1995). One paleontologist’s critique of Gish (1978) is: “On 67 of the 97 text pages I found at least one error of fact, logical error, or quota tion out of context, all chosen carefully to mislead the reader. On checking a standard college logic text with a list of logical fallacies, I found that Gish did not manage to miss a single one! Their works have the appearance of scholarship, but not the substance” (Sloan, 1983, p. 263).

Questions or Comments about GCSSEPM?

Send us e-mail and we will get back to you as soon as we can.